Abstract
Approaches to nonproliferation analysis from the standpoint of the potential dange of fissioning materials are demonstrated for two problems: the proliferation risk in a long-time global strategy for growth of nuclear fuel cycle and the choice of an efficient strategy for the utilization of weapons and power plutonium in Russia.
Comparing open and closed nuclear cycles with multiple recycling of plutonium in fast reactors according to the criterion of potential proliferation risk (“exposure risk”) shows that the present methodological approach does not confirm the idea that proliferation is of a greater danger in a closed cycle, which has become the foundation for long-time nuclear policy of the US.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
R. Krakowski and C. Rathke, “Reduction of worldwide plutonium inventories using conventional reactors and advanced fuels: a system study,” LA-UR-97-2809 (1997).
C. Heising, I. Saragossi, and P. Sharafi, “Comparative assessment of the economics and proliferation resistance of advanced,” Nuclear Fuel Cycles, Energy, 5, 1131 (1980).
P. Silvennoinen and J. Vira, “Quantifying relative proliferation risks from nuclear fuel cycles,” Progress Nucl. Eng., 17(3), 231 (1986).
R. Keaney and H. Raifa, Decision Making with Multiple Criteria: Preferences and Substitutions [Russian translation], Radio i Svyaz', Moscow (1981).
J. Dyer, T. Edmunds, J. Butler, and J. Jia, “Evaluation of alternatives for the disposition of surplus weapons-usable plutonium,” Amarillo National Resource Center for Plutonium, ANRCP-1997-1, (1997).
L. B. Kazakova, O. B. Kamaeva, L. V. Korobeinikova, et al., “Development of functional possibilities of MMKFK for simulating neutron and γ-ray transfer,” in: Abstracts of Reports at the Seventh All-Union Conference on “Monte Carlo Methods in Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics,” Novosibirsk, October 9-11, 1985, pp. 207-212.
N. V. Ptitsyna, V. I. Chitajkin, and L. I. Shibarshov, “Plutonium and its chemical compounds: the problem of nuclear weapon nonproliferation. Nuclear explosive device creation; radiological consequences of nuclear accident,” in: Proceedings of NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Managing the Plutonium Surplus: Applications and Technical Options, London, UK, January 24-25, 1994, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 157-170.
D. Beller and R. Krakowski, “Burnup dependence of proliferation attributes of plutonium from spent LWR fuel,” LA-UR-99-751 (1999).
T. Saaty, “A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures,” J. Math. Psychology, 15, 234 (1977).
B. V. Nikipelov, “Nonproliferation of nuclear materials in the 21st century,” Yad. Rasprostran., No. 35, 52-57 (2000).
E. O. Abamov (ed.), White Book of Nuclear Power, NIKIÉT, Moscow (1998).
E. O. Adamov, “Implementation of the Russian initiative will make it possible to solve safety problems and decrease the danger of proliferation,” Yad. Kontr., No. 1, 4-10 (2001).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Poplavskii, V.M., Usanov, V.I., Chebeskov, A.N. et al. Systems-Analysis Assessment of the Effectiveness of Measures for Decreasing the Proliferation Risk of Fissioning Materials. Atomic Energy 91, 896–905 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014209722470
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014209722470